U.S. Fire Ins. Co v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
Citation | 165 Cal.Rptr. 726,107 Cal.App.3d 456 |
Parties | UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 57922. |
Decision Date | 25 June 1980 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Kern & Wooley, John R. Johnson, Los Angeles, and Ralph S. LaMontagne, Jr., for defendant and appellant.
Clausen, Harris & Campbell, and Kenneth H. Clausen, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (hereinafter National) appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff United States Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter United). The judgment declared the respective parties' obligations as insurers in respect of an aircraft accident in which Philip Morgan, Jr. was the pilot. Claims for the resultant deaths and injuries were settled by United for $1,527,000, with a contribution of $300,000 from a non-party carrier. The judgment decreed that with respect to the accident:
The judgment also awarded United judgment against National in the amount of $1,000,000 plus interest.
The evidence before the trial court consisted of an oral stipulation of facts, documentary exhibits 1 through 5, and four depositions which were received in evidence though not marked as exhibits or numbered as such. The oral stipulation provided as follows:
The documentary exhibits included copies of the policies issued by United and National. United's policy was captioned a "Commercial Comprehensive Catastrophe Liability Policy." The pertinent coverage was "to indemnify the insured for ultimate net loss in excess of the retained limit hereinafter stated, which the insured may sustain by reason of the liability imposed upon the insured by law . . . (f)or damages . . . because of personal injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person or persons . . . ." The retained limit provision, so far as here pertinent, was as follows:
The definition of "insured" in the United policy included "any executive officer, director or stockholder of the named insured with respect to the use of an automobile or aircraft not owned by the named insured in the business of the named insured."
As a result of the above provision, it was apparent that Philip Morgan, Jr., individually, was an insured within the personal injury liability coverage of the United policy.
The National policy, on the other hand, clearly did not make Morgan an insured under its bodily injury coverage as of the date of the accident. As originally issued June 14, 1974, National's policy did extend bodily injury coverage to Morgan provided he was "using" the Beechcraft Bonanza aircraft of which U. S. West Investments was the record owner and which was described in the policy declarations, or was "legally responsible for its use." However, with respect to use of nonowned aircraft, such insured status was expressly withheld by an endorsement effective at the initiation of the policy. Coverage with respect to the operation of nonowned aircraft was limited to U. S. West Investments as named insured. The endorsement extending this coverage, for which an additional premium of $175 was charged, deleted the definition of "Insured" which applied to the described aircraft liability coverage as well as special provisions providing automatic insurance for newly acquired aircraft and a special provision governing "Use of Other Aircraft." However, before the accident occurred, further endorsements deleted altogether the described aircraft liability coverage, thus eliminating any coverage under which Morgan was an insured. A substantial premium refund accompanied the subsequent endorsement whereby, in effect, National refunded approximately $200 of a total liability premium of $525 which included $175 for the nonownership endorsement and $350 for the described aircraft liability. Inasmuch as the nonownership endorsement remained in effect for the full policy term, it is apparent that $200 of the $350 described aircraft liability coverage premium was refunded after approximately one-fourth of the policy term had expired. In consideration of this refund, U. S. West Investments became the sole insured for liability purposes and was covered only for use of nonowned aircraft in its behalf.
The stipulated facts, of course, show that both Morgan, personally, and U. S. West, vicariously, were liable for the damages arising from the crash of the nonowned Piper aircraft due to Morgan's negligence. Morgan was also an insured under an owner's policy covering the Piper aircraft. This policy had policy limits of $300,000 which sum was paid in full by the insurer, thus reducing the outlay for settlement to $1,227,000. The issue between United and National thus related to the allocation of responsibility between them for the remaining liability.
United contended that National was responsible to pay $1,000,000 of the loss because National's policy constituted "underlying insurance collectible by the insured," making "the insured's retained limit" under United's policy $1,300,000, 2 so that United's indemnity agreement covered only the excess, or $227,000, leaving National responsible for its full policy limits.
National, on the other hand, contended that whereas United's policy extended coverage both to Morgan, individually, and to U. S. West Investments, National's policy expressly excluded Morgan as an insured in respect of liability arising from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
...is entitled to seek indemnity from the partner whose negligence caused the loss. (United States Fire Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 456, 468, 165 Cal.Rptr. 726; Orosco v. Sun-Diamond Corp. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1659, 1670, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 179.) Because the rig......
-
Shapoff v. Scull
...separate identity, disregard of the corporate entity is in no sense automatic. (See United States Fire Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 456, 469, 165 Cal.Rptr. 726; Tarter, Webster & Johnson, Inc. v. Windsor Developers, Inc. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875, 877......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...Co. v. Soucy, 473 So.2d 683 [Fla.App.], approved in part, quashed in part 479 So.2d 114 [Fla.]; United States Fire Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 107 Cal.App.3d 456, 165 Cal.Rptr. 726; 16 Couch on Insurance 2d § 62:65 [revd. ed.]. In accordance with this rule, Oxford's right to i......
-
In re Flintkote Co.
...in this action.”). 45.See Lumpkin v. Envirodyne Indus., 933 F.2d 449, 464 (7th Cir.1991); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 107 Cal.App.3d 456, 468, 165 Cal.Rptr. 726 (1980). 46.See § 509(b)(2); Rubenstein v. Ball Bros. Inc., ( In re New England Fish Co.), 749 F.2d 1277, 1281......
-
Vicarious Liability Means Secondary Coverage, Irrespective Of General Rules Governing Primary And Excess Policies
...and the negligence claims against the driver. The court relied heavily on United States Fire Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 107 Cal. App. 3d 456 (1980), which held that where an employer's nonowned aircraft coverage was expressly limited to vicarious liability of the named insured......